The pro se Petitioner, Sean William Lee, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his guilty plea to multiple child sex offenses was involuntarily and unknowingly entered. Specifically, he submits that he was misinformed the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation would be supervising him while he was on the sex offender registry, instead of the Tennessee Department of Correction, the entity actually supervising him, rendering his plea constitutionally infirm. Because this particular issue was not first properly presented in the post-conviction court, this court is without authority to engage in plenary review. Accordingly, the judgment of the post- conviction court is affirmed.

This case involves the application of Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-1206(d) in a personal injury lawsuit in which the plaintiff seeks to proceed directly against her uninsured motorist insurance carrier. The trial court granted summary judgment to the carrier. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Petitioner seeks accelerated review of the denial of her motion to recuse the trial judge. The motion to recuse was filed after the entry of a judgment and the denial of a motion under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Because issues related to the denial of the motion to recuse may be raised in petitioner’s appeal of the final judgment, we dismiss this appeal.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal is taken from the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for recusal. Because Appellant’s application for appeal is untimely under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, §2.02, this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal, and it is dismissed.

Great-Grandmother appeals the denial of her petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. The trial court found one ground for termination but concluded that termination of Mother’s parental rights was not in the child’s best interest. We affirm.

In this dispute between members of a limited liability company, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached her fiduciary duty through the unilateral sale of company assets. The trial court referred the matter to a Special Master, who determined the assets were significantly undervalued in the sale and recommended a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant filed no objections to the Special Master’s report. The trial court subsequently adopted the findings and recommendations. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s adoption of the report, asserting that the trial court failed to make independent findings. We affirm.

This is an appeal from an interpleader action filed by a trustee of a trust who held funds that were to be distributed to a beneficiary but were subject to claims by other parties. The trial court granted the trustee permission to deposit the funds, discharged him from liability, and ordered some of the funds to be disbursed in accordance with settlement agreements the beneficiary had entered into in other litigation involving his children. The trial court proceeded to consider the claims of various other parties to determine who was entitled to the remainder of the interpleaded funds. Law firms who had represented the beneficiary in separate litigation filed an answer and claimed that they had an attorney charging lien against the trust distributions. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court determined that the law firms presented no proof of an attorney lien against the trust distributions. As such, the trial court ordered the remaining funds to be distributed to other parties. After an additional hearing on motions to revise, the trial court again found that no attorney lien existed. The law firms appealed. For the following reasons, the decision of the trial court is hereby affirmed and remanded.

This is an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board which reversed the judgment of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and found that an employee may not seek permanent total disability benefits after a court-approved settlement for permanent partial disability benefits. This appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm.

At issue in this interlocutory appeal is the scope of discovery in a workers’ compensation case. The employee alleged she suffered severe injuries after being exposed to carbon monoxide at work. The employer accepted the compensability of the accident and paid certain temporary disability and medical benefits, but it reserved the right to later assert defenses to the claim. The employee forwarded written discovery requests to the employer then, after receiving the employer’s responses, asserted that the employer failed or refused to provide relevant information in response to those requests. The employer objected that certain of the employee’s requests sought information irrelevant to the workers’ compensation claim, were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or that the information sought included trade secrets, proprietary information, or sensitive material that should be subject to a protective order. Following the filing of multiple motions to compel, a motion for sanctions, and multiple motions for a protective order, the trial court conducted a hearing, after which it: (1) denied the employer’s motion for a protective order; (2) granted the employee’s motion to compel discovery; and (3) held the employee’s motion for sanctions and a referral to the Bureau’s compliance unit in abeyance. The employer has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s order, find the employer’s appeal frivolous, and remand the case.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Feb. 25 suspended 15 attorneys for failure to pay the annual registration fee, eight of whom also failed to file proof that client funds are held in an IOLTA-compliant account. View the fee suspension order and IOLTA suspension order. Lawyers reinstated in the last month include six in 2026, two in 2025 and one in 2024. Access all administrative suspensions dating back to 2005.